Publikation: Deceiving Numbers : Survival Rates and Their Impact on Doctor' Risk Communication
Dateien
Datum
Autor:innen
Herausgeber:innen
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
URI (zitierfähiger Link)
DOI (zitierfähiger Link)
Internationale Patentnummer
Link zur Lizenz
Angaben zur Forschungsförderung
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Sammlungen
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Publikationstyp
Publikationsstatus
Erschienen in
Zusammenfassung
Background
Increased 5-y survival for screened patients is often inferred to mean that fewer patients die of cancer. However, due to several biases, the 5-y survival rate is a misleading metric for evaluating a screening’s effectiveness. If physicians are not aware of these issues, informed screening counseling cannot take place.
Methods
Two questionnaire versions ("Group" and "time") presented 4 conditions: 5-y survival (5Y), 5-y survival and annual disease-specific mortality (5YM), annual disease-specific mortality (M), and 5-y survival, annual disease-specific mortality, and incidence (5YMI). Questionnaire version "time" presented data as a comparison between 2 time points and version "group" as a comparison between a screened and an unscreened group. All data were based on statistics for the same cancer site (prostate). Outcome variables were the recommendation of screening, reason- ing behind recommendation, judgment of the screening's effectiveness, and, if judged effective, a numerical esti- mate of how many fewer people out of 1000 would die if screened regularly. After randomized allocation, 65 Ger- man physicians in internal medicine and its subspecial- ities completed either of the 2 questionnaire versions.
Results
Across both versions, 66% of the physicians recommended screening when presented with 5Y, but only 8% of the same physicians made the recommenda- tion when presented with M (5YM: 31%; 5YMI: 55%). Also, 5Y made considerably more physicians (78%) judge the screening to be effective than any other condition (5YM: 31%; M: 5%; 5YMI: 49%) and led to the highest overestimations of benefit. Conclusion. A large number of physicians erroneously based their screening recommendation and judgment of screening's effectiveness on the 5-y survival rate. Results show that reporting disease-specific mortality rates can offer a simple solution to phy- sicians' confusion about the real effect of screening.
Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
Schlagwörter
Konferenz
Rezension
Zitieren
ISO 690
WEGWARTH, Odette, Wolfgang GAISSMAIER, Gerd GIGERENZER, 2011. Deceiving Numbers : Survival Rates and Their Impact on Doctor' Risk Communication. In: Medical Decision Making. 2011, 31(3), pp. 386-394. ISSN 0272-989X. eISSN 1552-681X. Available under: doi: 10.1177/0272989X10391469BibTex
@article{Wegwarth2011-05Decei-28050, year={2011}, doi={10.1177/0272989X10391469}, title={Deceiving Numbers : Survival Rates and Their Impact on Doctor' Risk Communication}, number={3}, volume={31}, issn={0272-989X}, journal={Medical Decision Making}, pages={386--394}, author={Wegwarth, Odette and Gaissmaier, Wolfgang and Gigerenzer, Gerd} }
RDF
<rdf:RDF xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/" xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/28050"> <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/> <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43"/> <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/> <dcterms:bibliographicCitation>Medical Decision Making ; 31 (2011), 3. - S. 386-394</dcterms:bibliographicCitation> <dc:creator>Wegwarth, Odette</dc:creator> <dc:contributor>Gigerenzer, Gerd</dc:contributor> <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/28050/1/Wegwarth_280506.pdf"/> <dc:creator>Gaissmaier, Wolfgang</dc:creator> <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43"/> <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/28050/1/Wegwarth_280506.pdf"/> <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights> <dc:contributor>Wegwarth, Odette</dc:contributor> <dc:language>eng</dc:language> <dcterms:title>Deceiving Numbers : Survival Rates and Their Impact on Doctor' Risk Communication</dcterms:title> <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2014-07-04T08:25:02Z</dcterms:available> <bibo:uri rdf:resource="http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/28050"/> <dc:contributor>Gaissmaier, Wolfgang</dc:contributor> <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2014-07-04T08:25:02Z</dc:date> <dcterms:issued>2011-05</dcterms:issued> <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Background<br /><br />Increased 5-y survival for screened patients is often inferred to mean that fewer patients die of cancer. However, due to several biases, the 5-y survival rate is a misleading metric for evaluating a screening’s effectiveness. If physicians are not aware of these issues, informed screening counseling cannot take place.<br /><br />Methods<br />Two questionnaire versions ("Group" and "time") presented 4 conditions: 5-y survival (5Y), 5-y survival and annual disease-specific mortality (5YM), annual disease-specific mortality (M), and 5-y survival, annual disease-specific mortality, and incidence (5YMI). Questionnaire version "time" presented data as a comparison between 2 time points and version "group" as a comparison between a screened and an unscreened group. All data were based on statistics for the same cancer site (prostate). Outcome variables were the recommendation of screening, reason- ing behind recommendation, judgment of the screening's effectiveness, and, if judged effective, a numerical esti- mate of how many fewer people out of 1000 would die if screened regularly. After randomized allocation, 65 Ger- man physicians in internal medicine and its subspecial- ities completed either of the 2 questionnaire versions.<br /><br />Results<br />Across both versions, 66% of the physicians recommended screening when presented with 5Y, but only 8% of the same physicians made the recommenda- tion when presented with M (5YM: 31%; 5YMI: 55%). Also, 5Y made considerably more physicians (78%) judge the screening to be effective than any other condition (5YM: 31%; M: 5%; 5YMI: 49%) and led to the highest overestimations of benefit. Conclusion. A large number of physicians erroneously based their screening recommendation and judgment of screening's effectiveness on the 5-y survival rate. Results show that reporting disease-specific mortality rates can offer a simple solution to phy- sicians' confusion about the real effect of screening.</dcterms:abstract> <dc:creator>Gigerenzer, Gerd</dc:creator> <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>